Especially when you consider how advanced the youngest generation is NOT. Yes, they've very good at operating their smartphones. But the things they DON'T know could fill a large city. Including how a smartphone works or how to build one, interestingly enough!

I can't get over how people think a 13 year old child of today is "more advanced" than a 13 year old child from 1350. Because WE have Google!

Double facepalm. That 14th century 13 year old could run circles around the modern 13 year old in almost every possible way! ZERO evolution has taken place. Nothing ever gets added to the "default knowledge" that babies are born with. Modern men are so full of hubris, and so full of themselves. And so deluded.

Building a primitive, mechanical relay or transistor-based 4-bit computer is as relevant today as it ever was. The *results* might not be as *impressive* today, but the concepts are just as necessary to teach today's kids, even if they do have powerful smartphones in their pockets.

One man said he asked software developers to describe what happens when you type a URL into the browser bar and hit Enter. He said if they can't fill an hour talking about that, he shows them the door.

Just look at this poll. The numbers are particularly bad because of the DEMOGRAPHICS (particularly the AGE GROUP) of the MyPoints population.

MyPoints is mostly used by Millennials and Generation X. In other words, the generations in their childbearing years. Almost no "Gen Z" who are barely out of college and not well established (they have an excuse why they're not married yet). Gen Z is actually the most "prime" for childbearing years biologically, but not when you consider the economic/social/cultural angles.

MyPoints also has some Boomers thrown in, but they're a minority.

I just know that if they asked if you had a dog or cat, the numbers would be much higher than 5%.

I just feel like in a normal society, more than 5% of people 25-50 would have a 0-4 year old running around.

.

Yes, this is definitely true. In fact, the claim that "people can't afford to have children" is actually backwards, if you look at the actual data. It's rich countries that have few children, and poor countries that have more. There is an almost perfect correlation between a country's wealth and its birthrate. The correlation is just as strong on the individual level, that people who make more money have fewer children, and the more money they make, the fewer they have. Again, this is an almost perfect correlation in demographic statistics.

The takeaway, I think, is that it's just an excuse to say that people can't afford to have children. The real reason is sloth and avarice.